Archive for October 2015

I talked recently with a man who had relocated from Michigan to Gardiner, Montana, a small town just outside of Yellowstone. Given that both states have wolves, we discussed them. The man, large enough to be a pro-football lineman, said he often hunted for deer in Michigan’s wolf country. He recalled one day when he was sitting in his blind and heard wolves howl. He felt a tingle of fear. As darkness fell and he made his way to the car, the wolves howled again, too close for his comfort. As he hustled through the woods, he had a pistol in one hand and a rifle in the other. His headlamp beam moved like the light on a prison guard tower, as his head swiveled left to right.

“I’ll tell you, the hairs were up on the back of my neck, and I was ready to blast them wolves if it came to that,” he said.

His fear was obvious and real. But was it realistic? A few days later, I once again searched for an answer to the question of whether we should fear wolves.

I found two documented fatal — and tragic — attacks by wolves in North America. On Nov. 8, 2005, searchers recovered the body of a man in northern Saskatchewan. Two years later a jury found that he had died from “injuries consistent with a wolf attack.” An investigator suspected that the attacking wolves might have lost their fear of people after eating at open garbage dumps. Luigi Boitani, wolf expert, expressed a different opinion in a 2015 interview with Spiegel. He said that the man had apparently been feeding the wolves regularly and that this could cause them to lose their fear of people.

On Mar. 8, 2010, the body of a woman was found along a road near a rural Alaskan community. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game — relying on DNA evidence for the first time — concluded that wolves killed her and that the wolves were not defending a kill or habituated to people.

So wolves have killed two people, one in Alaska, one in Canada. But what about in the lower 48 where that hunter feared for his safety?

A 2002 report prepared for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game found no human deaths in North America attributed to wild, healthy wolves since at least 1900.

In 2011, a spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife said that no wolves have attacked humans in the Rocky Mountain states. The Oregoniannewspaper investigated the claim. A reporter contacted the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minnesota, where a spokesperson stated that wolves have not attacked humans in the lower 48.

I found no other reports since 2011 of fatal wolf attacks. But I did come across statistics that help place those two wolf-related fatalities in a different light.

The National Canine Research Council reported 41 confirmed or potential fatal dog attacks in 2014 and 32 verified fatalities in 2013.

Records at the International Hunter Education Association show that during one six-year period 265 people died in hunting accidents.

An article from The Interstate Sportsman reports that each year in this country 1,500 to 1,800 people drown, and 800 to 875 die in boating accidents.

Dog attacks, drowning, and hunting and boating accidents claim far more lives than wolves have or ever will. Yet I don’t hear anyone demanding that we eradicate all dogs or ban hunting, swimming, or boating so that we can protect ourselves from such dangers.

The chance of wolves killing people are minuscule; there are many greater fears to worry about. That some people use the fear of wolf attacks as a way to justify killing wolves — an endangered species — is another example of the incredible power of the myths and misinformation that surround these essential predators.

The state’s emphasis on non-lethal control is saving livestock and wolves, but rural residents are still leery.

In July 2015, some U.S. Air Force personnel were hiking about eight miles up North Fork Chewelah Creek, in northeastern Washington, when they found the chewed-up remains of a cow. They notified the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, which sent out investigators the next day. The investigators found a second carcass nearby and three days later, discovered two more — a cow and a calf. Wolves, they determined, had killed all four animals.
The dead cattle were squarely in the territory of a wolf pack called Dirty Shirt, and local ranchers’ reactions were predictably fierce. “The time for the removal of the Dirty Shirt pack is now,” Justin Hedrick, the president of the Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association, said in a statement. But instead of mustering sharpshooters, wildlife officials sent riders on horseback to keep the wolves away. They used generators to shine bright lights around the rest of the herd, while other employees patrolled the area. They shared data on the pack’s location — three wolves are radio-collared — with area livestock producers, so other cattle could be shifted out of harm’s way. But they also said that if the wolves killed more cows, they would consider shooting them.
Within a few days, the pack moved to a different part of its territory, and fears died down. Three months later, its wolves remain on probation of a sort, but the state hasn’t taken further action. And even though tempers still simmer, the incident shows the difference between wolf recovery in the Northwest compared to the Rocky Mountains or the Southwest. Washington, with its generally more progressive politics, was able to adopt policies that would have had little traction in the Interior West. But even here, thanks to stark urban-rural political divides, the effort’s successes come by way of a very delicate and ongoing balancing act.

by Eric Wagner Oct. 26, 2015

A curious gray wolf from the Lookout Pack in northeast Washington encounters a trail-cam. Trail-cam photos like this can help wildlife officials document wolf presence and estimate pack composition, reproductive status and territory use. David Moskowitz

Culling has hit the headlines recently, and various species have topped the undesirables list. it seems to be fashionable across the globe to shoot first, ask questions later. From the Japanese randomly killing dolphins, to Australians going all out on sharks, I’d like to make a radical proposal to stop this madness.

In Norway the new fad is to kill the wolves, despite 80% of population wanting to keep the species in their high numbers. The problem is with farming: it is claimed that sheep are killed by these animals. However, around 1500 out of 2 million Norwegian sheep are killed by wolves a year, and these small numbers are compensated for. A much higher proportion of their deaths is predicted to be the result of some dumb sheep thing like falling down a crevasse. Moreover, wolves supposedly present a danger to human life. Remarkably, for a somewhat foreward thinking, humanitarian country, the proposed culling in Norway still seems to think of the wolf as the big bad creep out of a Brothers Grimm fairytale. In reality they affect humans very little: no one’s been killed by a wolf since 1800.

These animals, which have called Scandinavia their home for thousands of years, are facing extermination by ignorance and fear-mongering. Absurdly, farmers have said the animal “contributes nothing.” Well besides balancing the ecosystem what do you expect wild animals to contribute to the human world? It’s like saying ‘hamsters are shit bankers, so to hell with the lot of them’. And quite frankly I think this statement is rash, existentially wolves may ‘contribute’ more than economics can measure. If it wasn’t for wolves, what would people get tattooed to represent their spirituality? Jokes aside, if people do not pay attention to this ridiculous occurrence its existence will only snowball, and these majestic creatures will become extinct.

Similarly the Hufflepuff mascot is being culled by our meat obsession. Not to go all Morissey on you, but the British badger is effectively being killed so we can kill other animals. It’s not even working. The aim of the policy is to prevent TB spread in livestock. The randomised culling however has led to the remaining badgers spreading to TB areas and catching the disease, so the problem has just been aggravated. My only suggestion in this line of thinking, for a completely successful British cattle-farming, is to kill every animal apart from the ones we want to eat. In fact, kill all the cattle too because 94% of bovine TB spread is due to herd-to-herd transmission. If we’re going to roll with this fists-first attitude, why not go the whole hog (or cow)?

One could argue that it is a survival of the fittest, dog-eat-dog world. If the Dodo was too stupid and fat to survive, that’s not our problem. The issue I take with this reasoning is that it’s regressive and insulting to humanity: have we not evolved beyond the carelessness of survival techniques such as these? Aren’t we intelligent enough to realise when something is destructive – and what’s more, ineffective – and found a logical and peaceful way around it? It’s like we haven’t made any progress since we were hairy cavemen and ladies thrusting spears at woolly mammoths.

To me, culling is an unnatural, nonsensical and lazy policy which does not belong in the modern world.

Over the past decade, the National Park Service has objected to at least 50 proposals by Alaska wildlife officials to liberalize the killing of predators within national preserves. The conflict can be traced back to 1994, when the Alaska Legislature passed a law mandating that the Board of Game pursue intensive management “to maintain, restore, or increase the abundance of big game prey populations for human consumptive use,” according to a 2007 article in the Alaska Law Review by University of Alaska, Fairbanks, professor Julie Lurman and NPS subsistence manager Sanford Rabinowitch.
“Predator control”, which aims to suppress numbers of bears, wolves and coyotes in order to boost prey species, including moose and caribou, is incompatible with the Park Service’s mandate to preserve “natural ecosystems,” including at its 20 million acres of national preserves in Alaska (Sport hunting, illegal in national parks, is allowed in Alaska’s national preserves under a law Congress passed in 1980).
NPS first proposed a permanent ban on three predator hunting practices in 2014. These practices were illegal under Alaska law until approval (several years ago) by the state’s Board of Game. That proposal bans the baiting of brown ‪‎bears‬, the hunting of wolves and‪ coyotes‬ during the denning and pupping period, and the use of artificial light to shoot black bear sows and cubs at their dens, a technique known as “spotlighting.”
Now, after a long and heated battle, National Park Service will implement tighter restrictions on sport hunting with the closure regulations become effective Nov. 23, and new hunting regulations effective January 1st of next year. State officials, needless to say, are not pleased.
The new restrictions include these changes to sport hunting regulations on national preserves:

*NPS prohibits taking wolves and coyotes during the denning season.
*NPS prohibits the taking of any black bear using artificial lights at den sites including cubs and sows with cubs.
*NPS prohibits taking brown and black bears over bait.
*NPS will not allow hunters to use dogs to hunt black bears, while it is permitted by state rules.
*NPS will not allow hunters to shoot swimming caribou from a boat or shoot caribou that have emerged from the water onto the shoreline while the hunter is still on the boat, though state rules permit both.

Featured Graphic: National Parks Conservation Association

The manipulation of natural population dynamics conflicts with National Park Service law and policy. National park areas are managed to maintain natural ecosystems and processes, including wildlife populations and their behaviors. While sport hunting is allowed by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in national preserves in Alaska, NPS policies prohibit reducing native predators for the purpose of increasing numbers of harvested species.

For years, the National Park Service had repeatedly requested the State of Alaska and the Alaska Board of Game to exempt national preserves from state regulations that liberalized hunting methods, seasons and bag limits for predators. State officials denied those requests, as well as also objecting to the use of repeated temporary federal closures.

“Sport hunting” occurs on about 38 percent (more than 20 million acres) of the land managed by the National Park Service in Alaska. In these national preserves, sport hunting generally occurs under state regulations. Though a large majority of state sport hunting regulations would remain unchanged, this is an enormous step in the right direction and puts a stop to these abhorrent acts of inhumanity in and around Alaska’s national parks and preserves.

National Park System areas, including preserves, already prohibit other predator control actions, such as aerial shooting of wolves, a horrific practice which the State of Alaska conducts as part of its statewide wildlife “management” program.

Last week was Wolf Awareness Week. In graduate school and here on The Ecotone Exchange I’ve written about wolf science and the legacy of wolves in Oregon and for Wolf Awareness Week 2013 I posted a commentary entitled “A Wolf’s Eye.” In the past few years, I’ve taught the essay “Lone Wolf” by Joe Donnelly, published in Orionmagazine, about Oregon’s famous wolf OR-7, the first to disperse from his pack and travel over the Cascade Mountains since wolves came back to Oregon in the mid-1990s. My community college students not only found Donnelly’s article to be an excellent example of essay-writing, but fascinating.

Today, I read updates on the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife website Wolf Page and looked for current media coverage. Oregon’s wolf population is growing and their status is up for re-evaluation and possibly a big change–and soon. Currently, all wolves in Oregon are protected under the state’s Endangered Species Act; additionally, wolves in western Oregon are federally protected. A meeting to consider delisting them from protection under the state’s ESA is slated for November, this year.

Map courtesy of ODFW.

Oregon wolves are managed under the state’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. At the end of 2014, our wolf population numbered 77 wolves. Now that there are eight breeding pairs that have produced pups for at least three consecutive years, Phase II of the WCMP is in place, triggering the move to consider delisting.

Map courtesy of ODFW.

On one hand, delisting under Phase II of the WMP signals that wolves are thriving here on the landscapes of their once-home–wolves are a native species to Oregon:

“Wolves are native to Oregon. They were listed as endangered by the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1974. When the Oregon Legislature enacted the state’s own ESA in 1987, it grandfathered in all species native to Oregon that were then listed under the federal ESA, including wolves. This law requires the Fish and Wildlife Commission (and ODFW) to conserve wolves in Oregon. Also, Oregon’s Wildlife Policy directs the Commission to manage wildlife “… to prevent serious depletion of any indigenous species and to provide the optimum recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations of the citizens of the state.” This includes a species as controversial as the wolf.” –ODFW.

On the other hand, delisting allows for killing of wolves at the hand of ranchers if they are caught in the act of depredation. Now, only ODFW can kill repeat offenders; as explained on the agency’s website, “Four Oregon wolves have been killed by ODFW or authorized agents in response to chronic depredations of livestock, including two in Baker County in September 2009 and two in Wallowa County in May 2011. In both situations, landowners and wildlife managers first tried a variety of non-lethal measures to avoid wolf-livestock conflict.” Currently, private citizens cannot harm or kill wolves.

Even though a reported 70 percent of Oregon citizens, according to the Statesman Journal, want wolves to come home, the conflict that spurred the wolf bounty and eradication remains and runs deep–generations deep.

I don’t live in wolf country–at least not yet, not until more of them trek over the mountains–and I know I’d be frightened and wary should I ever meet a wolf while camping or hiking. But I also believe wolves belong in Oregon. I believe in the ecosystems science that documents the benefits they provide as an apex predator–and if you’re interested in learning what wolves provide, I strongly suggest the filmLords of Nature.

More importantly, I fundamentally believe people cannot kill off everything in the way of human endeavor. We have hit the wall with that brand of progress mentality.

Photograph courtesy of ODFW.

Last weekend, my partner and I watched the original, animated version of Dr. Suess’s The Lorax. In it, Dr. Suess so very aptly illustrates what happens when species are sacrificed at the hand of industry. Though ranching in Oregon has not compromised the landscape to the extent that Mr. Onceler’s Thneed business did in The Lorax, the truth remains that Oregon wolves were killed off for one reason only–so that the ranching industry could take hold.

So how big of a problem are Oregon’s wolves to Oregon’s livestock? Not a big problem at all, according to OFDW’s depredation reports–for example, of the handful of reports filed in September, none showed signs of wolf kill, though one animal had been eaten by wolves, along with other predators and scavengers. And The Statesman Journal, in an article entitled “When the Wolves Return to Western Oregon,” quantifies 104 wolf kills of livestock since wolves returned to Oregon [in the mid- to late-1990s].

In contrast to the attitude that wolves are a huge threat for ranchers, Oregon Wildreports that the Eastern Oregon’s cattle ranching industry has shown significant economic growth concurrent with the arrival of wolves to that area of the state:

“Northeast Oregon’s Wallowa County is a case study for that very point. It is ground zero for the argument from wolf detractors that wolves will decimate Oregon’s livestock industry. The county’s livestock industry has been in a steady decades-long decline preceding wolf recovery. However, from 2009 to 2011 – while the wolf population grew from two to fourteen, livestock revenue jumped nearly 50 percent to nearly $27 million in a county with barely 7,000 citizens. Wolves were not the cause of the increase, but it’s clear their effect on the industry is negligible. Though wolves may have some localized impacts on individual livestock operators, those can be significantly reduced with responsible husbandry. Additionally, in Oregon, ranchers are fully compensated by taxpayers for any losses.” –Oregon Wild.

This chart puts into prospect loss of of livestock to wolf attacks:

Courtesy of WildEarth Guardians.

Clearly, wolves aren’t a problem. Next month, on November 9, the ODFW Commission will meet in Salem to discuss the delisting of wolves in Oregon. Delisting–or taking away wolves’ protection as an Endangered Species–is a public process. This means your voice matters. ODFW cannot make rules or change the listing status of wolves without public input. Please send your comments to odfw.commission@coho2.dfw.state.or.us. Please make sure to include “Comments on Wolf Delisting Proposal” in the subject line of emails. Public testimony will also be heard at the meeting.

One of the most significant take-aways from graduate school for me was reading into case studies of environmental legislation and coming to understand how important public comments are in the rule-making, or legislative, process. Speaking on the issue of wolf protection is a democratic opportunity; please let your voice be heard.

I’ll leave you with this famous passage from Aldo Leopold:

“My own conviction on this score dates from the day I saw a wolf die. We were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its way. We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast awash in white water. When she climbed the bank toward us and shook out her tail, we realized our error: it was a wolf. A half-dozen others, evidently grown pups, sprang from the willows and all joined in a welcoming melee of wagging tails and playful maulings. What was literally a pile of wolves writhed and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot of our rimrock.

In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy: how to aim a steep downhill shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was dragging a leg into impassable slide-rocks.

We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes – something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.” —“Thinking Like a Mountain”

Another law meant to circumvent citizen’s right to know. In Wisconsin a legislator is proposing a law that will protect fringe hunters from citizens monitoring them. Representative Adam Jarchow (R) in a press release on October 12, 2015 introduced Right to Hunt Act legislation that would make it illegal to follow, photograph or record hunters and with fines of up to $10,000 fine and nine months jail time. 2015 SENATE BILL 338 and Assembly Bill 433

“State Rep. Adam Jarchow, R-Balsam Lake, said that he has gotten complaints about a group called Wolf Patrol following and filming bear hunters and their dogs this summer. ” WPR

I have accompanied Rod Coronado’s Wolf Patrol on numerous occasion and never once saw them harass hunters. As a matter of fact, Coronado was approached by a lost hound hunting dog this summer while monitoring bear bait sites in Northern Wisconsin on public lands and may have saved the dog’s life.

“This morning we found this old hound hanging around a bear bait site in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest near Drummond, which is active wolf territory. We got him watered and he was grateful and wanting into our truck! We stayed close with him until a hound hunter was able to retrieve him, for which he was grateful too, as this is how dogs like these bear hounds become wolf bait.” Rod Coronado of Wolf Patrol

The old hound was lucky that Wolf Patrol was there to rescue him, as 15 bear hounds had been killed by wolves defending their territory in the summer of 2015.

Every year WDNR cautions hunters, “Each year, with the beginning of the Wisconsin bear hound training and hunting season, hunters are reminded to exercise caution if they plan to train or hunt bear with hounds. Hunters should use the caution area maps below to help reduce conflicts during this year’s bear dog training and hunting season.” Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wolves are forced to defend their pups against packs of free ranging bear hunting hound dogs in Wisconsin’s north woods.

Coronado’s Wolf Patrol saved the life of one bear hound to which the handler was grateful for, “We stayed close with him until a hound hunter was able to retrieve him, for which he was grateful too,” Coronado of Wolf Patrol

Wolf Patrol has been monitoring hound hunters in Wisconsin now for over a year. I was first approached by Rod Coronado in July of 2014 with the idea of helping out Wolves of Douglas County Wisconsin’s efforts to ban the use of dogs in the wolf hunt.

Rachel Tilseth and Rod Coronado monitoring WI wolf hunt October 2014

Thanks to this combined effort were able to influence the DNR to close the Wolf Hunt, “no doubt influenced Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to stop this year’s wolf hunt when they did. There was talk that the hunt would continue longer, as some zones had not killed their quota, even though the overall quota of 150 wolves had been met. The extended season would have allowed hound hunters more time to go after wolves. This atrocious sport, allowed only in Wisconsin, did not legally begin until the regular wolf season ended on December 1.” Becky Elgin freelance reporter & Blogger Wolves and Writing

It appears that state representative Adam Jarchow is pandering to a minority of hunters by introducing legislation that would prohibit monitoring of fringe hunters by citizens, such as Wolf Patrol and Wolves of Douglas County Wisconsin.

Protecting free speech means protecting a free press, the democratic process, diversity of thought, and so much more. The ACLU has worked since 1920 to ensure that freedom of speech is protected for everyone. ACLU

As a northern Wisconsin native I enjoy spending time outdoors . If passed this law would hinder non -consumptive recreationists from being on public lands. What is fair about that if hunting and trapping is occurring 24/7/365? ~Keri Lewis writer at Wolves of Douglas County Wisconsin

Just how does this proposed legislation affect journalists, or others using public lands, for example, bird or deer hunters?

In fact this 2015 SENATE BILL 338 is an effort to strengthen hunter harassment law, “activity associated with lawful hunting, fishing, or trapping. The types of serial conduct prohibited include maintaining a visual or physical proximity to the person, approaching or confronting the person, or photographing the person.” 2015 SENATE BILL 338

Is the intent of this proposed legislation to limit public’s right to know if there is any illegal activities happening on public lands?

Wolves as of December 2014 are a federally protected species and Wolf Patrol is monitoring the controversial legal practice of bear baiting and bear hunting with dogs in northern Wisconsin. To learn About Wolf Patrol.

“Wisconsin Representative Adam Jarchow has chosen Wolf Awareness Week to introduce the unconstitutional ‘Right To Hunt Act’, which would criminalize the use of cameras or driving on public roads if a hunter feels that they are being harassed. Jarchow has targeted Wolf Patrol as the reason behind proposing this tightening of existing hunter harassment laws in Wisconsin, citing our recent citizen-monitoring of bear baiting season in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.” Wolf Patrol’s Response to Wisconsin Representative Adam Jarchow’s proposed “Right to Hunt Act”

“By introducing the Right to Hunt Act, Rep. Jarchow is asking that the constitutional rights of those opposed to bear baiting and hound hunting be illegally restricted. If the law is passed, Wolf Patrol will continue its monitoring of bear hunting and any other activity that threatens wolves and challenge this unconstitutional law in the courts.” ~Rod Coronado

This came in today to WODCW from HSUS Wisconsin State Director Melissa Tedtrowe. Please follow the directions and share.

Hello everyone!
I’m writing to share a quick update on our federal campaign to keep wolves protected, and to ask for your help.
Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey and Barbara Boxer of California have composed a letter to President Obama, pointing out that a record number of anti-environmental provisions undermining the Endangered Species Act have been included in the Senate and House versions of the FY 2016 Interior appropriations bill. The letter, now co-signed by 14 other Senators, urges President Obama to flatly reject all riders that would undermine Endangered Species Act protections for particular species or otherwise erode the Act.

We would like Senator Tammy Baldwin to sign onto that letter. In fact, I’ve been told that she is the most pivotal Congressperson to reach; if she signs on, it changes the dynamics in the Democratic caucus on the wolf issue.

Will you please help me by making a call to Senator Baldwin’s D.C. office (202-224-5653) and saying the following:

I am calling to ask Senator Baldwin to sign onto the Booker-Boxer letter to oppose delisting of wolves and other endangered species in the omnibus spending bill.